I agree with you 100%, I am my own man. The only person I am beholding to is Jesus. 

fargon wrote:

I agree with you 100%, I am my own man. The only person I am beholding to is Jesus. 

 
really? honestly, that surprises me

but, I'll take you at your word...  👍

I agree with almost all of your post, Henry, except this bit here.  and maybe it is because I don't understand it.

henry_quirk wrote:

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

What does "are only forfeit" mean?  Do you mean "should only be forfeit in a perfect world?"

For example, what if I lose track of what I am doing, and the speed I am driving creeps up past the posted speed limit, and I honestly didn't intend to break the law.  But there you go, I was speeding.  So the government pulls me over and gives me a fine and takes my money (property.)  I did not "knowingly" or "willingly" break the law.  I didn't "deprive another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property" but my property was most certainly forfeit when I had to pay the fine.  Based on that example, I can't agree that the quoted sentence above is true.
 

henry_quirk wrote:

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Respectfully disagree. You dramatize about leashes, shackles, whips--sure, nobody likes literal pain. But there are different ways one can be "property," and plenty of folks will gladly choose a life where they are told what to do and how to do it, as long as they are kept comfortable.

(This is the part where you turn around and try to make it personal again, e.g. "Well *I* don't accept yer offer of comfortableness," because that's what happens every time someone refutes your bold statements about humanity. Your exception for those "made crazy by abuse and deprivation" is just a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and you clearly struggle to reconcile your contrarian instincts with your desperation to convince others to be like you.)

henry_quirk wrote:

do you intend to participate in the debate? If so, I'd like your statement of position on the table...I will not be the cheese, standin' alone...I should be able to interrogate your philosophy to the same degree you'll interrogate mine

This is a fair request, and I have to respectfully decline.  It's not something I ever gave any thought to, and coming up with an ironclad "philosophy' sounds like too much work.

Didn't the founding fathers already figure this stuff out, and 244 years of legislators and court rulings fill in the gaps?

 

This is a fair request

I think so

I have to respectfully decline

👍

Last edited by henry_quirk (12/22/2020 4:14 pm)

henry_quirk wrote:

I prefer self-correcting systems over human intervention, but the circumstances always matter.

could you name one of these self-correctin' systems? one that doesn't involve those pesky intervenin' humans

 
Generally speaking, capitalism is one. Humans who can derive internal satisfaction from a job well done without some kind of external reward are rare, and even the most sanguine will eventually get burnt out if others are allowed to desecrate their work. Capitalism self-corrects against the inherently lazy.

Generally speaking, socialism is also one. Concentrating wealth in a limited number of people based on arbitrary things like parentage, gender, or lack of disability prevents the disadvantaged from utilizing and offering their very real talents, *and* eventually causes the same loss of motivation and productivity as pure socialism: once the accumulated rewards get too high, they become meaningless, and the motivation to work hard is lost just as much as it is for those who get no personal reward for their work. Socialism self-corrects against hoarding.

In short, capitalism keeps the world working in the short term, while socialism keeps capitalism within bounds over the long term, especially over multiple generations. Capitalism breaks in the long term because successful parents give their lazy kids advantages they do not strictly deserve within the supposed "hard work = reward" framework. When it comes to family, most capitalists lose all their supposed principles. If the lazy children of hard-working people are forced to play by the same rules as hard-working children of lazy people, the outcomes are better for everyone.

There are multiple ways to achieve the balance, of course. Most of the day-to-day taxes for social programs that hard-liberty folks find objectionable could be eliminated if they were replaced instead with a 90% estate tax. Work hard, accumulate your rewards, more power to you: but your children didn't earn a dime of it, and they don't get anything. Give it to charity on your deathbed, or the state can oversee that process for you. Problem solved. But either way, the system as a whole has to correct from both sides, meaning a combination of capitalism and socialism.

I asked: could you name one of these self-correctin' systems? one that doesn't involve those pesky intervenin' humans
 
Generally speaking, capitalism is one.

Generally speaking, socialism is also one.

well, this doesn't seem right...both are human systems that only exist becuz there are capitalists & socialists...the systems don't exist without humans...and both can lead to their state versions, which is nuthin' but humans intervenen'

it seems to me there are no self-correctin' systems in the way you mean

biological systems (life) can be considered finitely self-correctin...Reality may be a vast self-correctin' system...in a roundabout way man's systems could be considered self-correctin' if you count man as the grounding of the system and as the means of correction

but standalone systems of human invention, no, those don't even exist much less self-correct


Work hard, accumulate your rewards, more power to you: but your children didn't earn a dime of it, and they don't get anything. Give it to charity on your deathbed, or the state can oversee that process for you. Problem solved.

this loops back to my question in the government thread...

are there moral facts (about man) we can turn to as guides & boundaries of what is permissible between and among men?

as I reckon it, a man's property is his to do with as he sees fit

becuz there is a moral fact about man, redistributin' his property, while it may help the greater good, is off the table...becuz it's his he has no obligation to use his property as others would like...the gov, society, his family & friends, god himself, none of these have a legit claim on what is his


from up-thread...

there are different ways one can be "property," and plenty of folks will gladly choose a life where they are told what to do and how to do it, as long as they are kept comfortable.

no, to be property is to be property no matter how it's dressed up...and dressed up is often exactly what slavery is...tell a man he's property, flat-out, and he'll take exception...tell a man the world is his oyster if he only signs away his *soul, he may very well take the offer...his status as property is hidden from him, at least in the short term, but property he is









*not bein' literal, though I'm not bein' completely figurative either...we are (or, I am), at ground level, talkin' about moral fact, natural rights, whether a human being is just a smart ape-variant  or sumthin' more

as I say...

if there are no moral facts then all is permissible, the only limits bein' the shiftin' & shifty opinion of whoever comprises the majority at any time

if there are moral facts, then some strategies, solutions, methods of governance are off the table no matter how well those strategies, solutions, methods work to make life easy or better

Last edited by henry_quirk (12/23/2020 3:01 pm)

Grandfather wrote:

She's got the kind of legs I like... feet on one end and pussy on the other.

YMMV.

Diaphone Jim wrote:

Sexobon by any other name...

 
I have a keen appreciation of toes to twat as well...so unfortunate what's often livin' between any woman's ears ruins it

Flint wrote:

I agree with all of it. People prefer more degrees of freedom versus less-- this is a statement of the obvious. I agree, a person should practice morality wherein their intent and choices do not negatively impact others. This is what every major religion states, as far as I know. I don't think any reasonable person disagrees with any of this. The question is how to achieve it. What is Freedom? What increases it, and what decreases it?

Is this what you needed me to say in order to qualify for the discussion? If not, let me know.

 

 
do you intend the above to stand as your statement of position?

as I say: if my philosophy is to be examined, I ought to be able to examine yours as well

Flint wrote:

You should have asked clearly for a statement of position in the original post.

You stated your position, I'm saying there's nothing there to disagree with. The disagreement must therefore come in the application of ideas. What increases Liberty, what decreases it?

It would also be nice to have a definition of words. What is Liberty?

 
just to be clear: your initial post stands as your statement of position, yeah?

and: I define liberty in my initial post

I'm not going to let you past your first sentence.
If you have studied childhood development (or a child) you know that until a certain point of development children are unaware that they are not everything they perceive. Even when they do start becoming aware of the boundaries between themselves and the world around them they really don't grasp them all that well and that's how you get toddlers trying to put on shoes of their dolls or trying to climb inside their playmobil cars just like the little playmobil people.

So, no. A man doesn't know instinctually (instinctively?) that he belongs to himself. It is most definitely taught and learned if he evens thinks that.

Last edited by footfootfoot (12/23/2020 8:21 pm)